Veterans' Benefits hurtful to National Security

[Guest guest]

" luckypig " <luckypig

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:18:53 -0500

 

 

STILL MORE//: Veterans' Benefits

" hurtful " to National Security

 

 

 

-

VVA Government Relations Department

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 7:43 AM

 

Veterans' Benefits " hurtful " to National Security

 

 

*United States Media Monitors Network

 

Veterans' Benefits " hurtful " to National Security, says Pentagon

by Joel Wendland

(Tuesday 25 January 2005)

 

" In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (1-25-05), Pentagon

official David Chu, in a mockery of the contribution of veterans,

defended a new round of cuts by ironically describing funding for

programs like veterans' education and job training, health care,

pensions, VA housing and the like as " hurtful " to national security. "

 

The Wall Street Journal describes the pittance set aside for

veteran's benefits as " Congress' generosity, " even as the

Republican-controlled Congress and Bush Pentagon get set to slash

billions more from Veterans Administration's (VA) programs. In an

interview with the Wall Street Journal (1-25-05), Pentagon official

David Chu, in a mockery of the contribution of veterans, defended a

new round of cuts by ironically describing funding for programs like

veterans' education and job training, health care, pensions, VA

housing and the like as " hurtful " to national security.

 

Despite Republican pretense that spending increases for the VA

budget under the Bush administration have been large, new spending

neither has matched inflation over the same period, nor does it keep

pace with growing need.

 

For example, as private sector health care costs skyrocket,

veterans are more and more turning to the military's health insurance

program, Tricare. Retired service members account for half of the

people covered by Tricare, whereas just five years ago they accounted

for only 40 percent. The Bush administration wants to find ways to

stem this tide – none of which have anything to do with keeping

private sector insurance affordable. The slow rate of VA spending

growth enforced by Bush and the congressional Republicans over the

last four years won't cover growing deferred benefits, such as

education, housing, retirement, health care and so on, promised to

current service members or that are supposed to be available for new

enlistees.

 

Slow spending growth isn't even the biggest immediate problem for

vets. In the last two years, Bush ordered the closing of several VA

hospitals in different parts of the country, pushing waiting lists for

medical services for veterans as high as six months for about 230,000

vets. These closings followed in the wake of the congressional

Republican's concerted drive in 2003 to cut $15 billion from VA

spending over the next ten years.

 

And, since his razor thin victory over Senator Kerry and his claim

of " political capital " to rule as he sees fit, President Bush,

according to an Associate Press story about a leaked White House

Budget Office memo, plans to slash veterans' health care benefits by

over $900 million and veteran's housing programs by $50 million in

2005 alone. A Center for American Progress analysis says, " President

Bush's 2005 budget would increase prescription drug co-pays from $7 to

$15 for many veterans. In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7. " This

co-pay increase would have the biggest impact on " near-poor " veterans

whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new

premium.

 

In fact the Republicans are so desperate to cut veterans' benefits

they have started attacking fellow Republicans who want to preserve

current benefit levels. The Wall Street Journal reports that " the

House Republican leadership took the unusual step of stripping New

Jersey Rep. Christopher Smith of his chairmanship of the Veterans

Affairs Committee " for pushing " so aggressively for veterans benefits

that he at times threatened to oppose their spending plans – and

President Bush's – unless more retiree benefits were included. "

 

The Wall Street Journal attributes the fact that the Republicans

haven't been able to cut more from the VA budget to the work of large

veterans' lobby groups such as the Military Officers Association of

America and other veterans groups like American Legion and Vietnam

Veterans of America who have consistently blocked cuts and have pushed

for expanded programs and spending. Veterans groups have called for

expanded VA hospital usage, larger retiree, disability, and survivor

benefits, equitable pay for service members and better access to

health care and health insurance for retirees and survivors.

 

The Bush administration and the congressional Republicans lament

the fact that increasing entitlements promised to veterans have forced

them to limit the growth of spending for questionable missile systems

and other weapons programs. New funding for their illegal war on Iraq,

they claim, is also in jeopardy as long as so much new military

spending is set aside for veterans' programs.

 

These " compassionate conservatives " want to force American

taxpayers to choose between the GOP's vision of " national security "

and taking care of the people who have provided that national

security. While the Republicans would like to see tax dollars handed

over to the big defense that fund their election campaigns contractors

– their version of an " entitlement program, " they will also have to

deal with the 28 million people who sacrificed their time and lives in

the US military.

 

The Pentagon plans to reduce deferred benefit packages and

increase one-time cash awards for new enlistees in the hopes of

reducing, even eliminating, long-term benefit programs. In other

words, recruiters will ask young people to sign up with enticements of

several thousand-dollar payments and forget to tell them that they

could have more for college. Further, one Pentagon official said that

they'd like to change existing benefit plans to cause older service

members to retire early and thus have smaller pensions and fewer

benefits. Meanwhile, Republicans are blocking an effort to eliminate

premium payments for some retirees who receive Medicare. Also, the

reliance on reservists in Bush's war on Iraq to participate in longer

terms of active duty without adequate increases in pay is a de facto

pay cut that affects thousands of service members who share equally

the risks of military service.

 

The Republicans' effort to cut veterans' benefits is just another

sign of their callous attitude to the vast majority of people in this

country. They feel that the very rich are entitled to hundreds of

billions in tax cuts, but do not feel the least twinge of guilt in

forcing veterans to forego the benefits and services promised in

return for their sacrifices.

 

Yesterday Bush announced his request to Congress for another $80

billion, bringing the total spent on his war to $280 billion. Critics

of the new spending request see it as more money being thrown at a

criminal invasion of Iraq based on lies about WMD and terrorist ties

that also is draining national resources from programs that help

people for a military machine that kills and tortures. Opponents of

Bush's war believe it has undermined national security making

Americans the target of terrorism more than ever before, while Bush

wants us to believe that making sure retired veterans have food,

shelter, and medical care is a threat to national security.